Quashed

Sikesh.P. v. M/S. S.K. Food Processing

Kerala HC5 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/638/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The offences were compounded pursuant to a petition filed under Section 147 upon which the complainant voluntarily agreed not to prosecute.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.612 of 2009 are set aside; the offence is compounded.

Sikesh.P. Vs M/S. S.K. Food Processing — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.638 of 2012 () -----------------------------CRA.612/2009 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ST.NO.870/2007 of J.M.F.C.-IV,KOZHIKODE

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ PETITIONER:

¶7

SIKESH.P.

¶8

S/O. PADMANABHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. REEGAN AGENCIES CALTEX, KANNUR, MEETHALE VALAPPIL M.V. HOUSE, KOYYODU.P.O., CHALA KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ

¶10

SRI.SAJJU.S

¶11

SRI.PRAVEEN THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE:

¶13

M/S. S.L.K. FOOD PROCESSING

¶14

M.A. ROAD,CALICUT

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.K. KHALID

¶16

S/O. KUNHAMMED, HAPPY, NALLALAMAMSAM DESAM,

¶17

KOZHIKODE TALUK-676101

¶18

STATE OF KERALA

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.N.ANANDA RAJAN-R1

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMACHANDRAN-R2

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶25

==========================

¶26

CRL.R.P. No.638 OF 2012 ==========================

¶27

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2012

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The accused in S.T.No.870 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for having committed offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He took up the matter in appeal as Crl.Appeal No.612 of 2009. In the appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence was modified. The sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months was modified as simple imprisonment for one month. An amount of Rs.11000/- was awarded as compensation with a default sentence of one month.

¶30

Obviously, it is the failure on the part of the revision petitioner to discharge the liability towards the first respondent

¶31

Crl.R.P.638/12

¶32

¶33

despite the receipt of the statutory notice and the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period that led to his conviction and sentence. Crl.M.A.No.2161 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondent-complainant under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the effect that the case has been compromised and that they made terms. It is stated that the first respondent is not willing to prosecute the accused-revision petitioner and as such, the offence may be permitted to be compounded.

¶34

The compromise duly verified by the parties is brought on record. On perusing the petition filed under section 147 of the N.I.Act and upon hearing the learned counsel for the first respondent, it is evident that the first respondent, the complainant has volunteered to compound the offence and that the first respondent does not want to prosecute the revision petitioner. The offence is compoundable in

¶35

view of section 147 of the N.I Act. In the circumstances, having satisfied that the dispute has been compromised, the offence

¶36

Crl.R.P.638/12

¶37

¶38

punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner/accused is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode under section 138 of the N.I.Act in S.T.No.870 of 2007 and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.612 of 2009 of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶39

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.638/12

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

September, 2010

¶46

Crl.R.P.638/12 5

Sikesh.P. v. M/S. S.K. Food Processing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikesh.P. v. M/S. S.K. Food Processing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheer Kutty Vs State of Kerala

A.Jayaraj Vs State of Kerala

K.Sabu Vs N.S.Santhosh

B.Satheesan Vs K.G.Mohanlal

P.K.Chandran Vs K.G.Mohanlal

V.Surendran Vs Nancy Joseph